U.S. is Allied with and actively Supports Al-Qaeda

Iran Review
Interview with: James F. Tracy
By: Kourosh Ziabari

Professor James F. Tracy

American political commentator believes that the United States has been constantly allied with Al-Qaeda and supported it militarily and financially.

"Major media have recently had to acknowledge that US-NATO interests are aligned with Al Qaeda in Syria, of course overlooking the fact that the US and Sunni States also recruited and armed these soldiers of fortune. What the Obama administration has sought to do with the alleged murder of Bin Laden in May 2011 is to close the chapter on the old, villainous Al Qaeda and open a chapter on the new and friendly Al Qaeda. This narrative is slowly unfolding, while Americans are instructed on a different bogey to fear, which now appears to be homegrown terrorism," he said in an exclusive interview with Iran Review.
Prof. James F. Tracy is the Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, where he teaches courses on media history and the role of journalism in the public sphere. Tracy's scholarly work and commentary on media and politics have appeared in numerous academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative media news and opinion outlets. He is editor of Democratic Communiqué, journal of the Union for Democratic Communications, an affiliate of Project Censored, and a regular contributor to GlobalResearch.ca. Tracy's latest work assessing Western press coverage of US-NATO military ventures and the human costs of war appears in Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2013 (Seven Stories Press, 2012).

Prof. Tracy took part in an interview with Iran Review to answer some questions regarding the influence of advocacy organizations on the U.S. government and the mutual relationship between these entities, the further limitation of civil liberties and individual freedoms in the United States, the challenges ahead of progressive, alternative journalism in the United States, Western mainstream media's coverage of Iran and Syria affairs and the prospect of U.S. military expeditions in the Middle East.

Q: What do you think about the role of influential American think tanks and public diplomacy and advocacy organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations or the National Endowment for Democracy in creating unrest and instability in the countries which are opposed to the United States policies? Do you find traces of their footsteps in the ongoing violence in Syria? Do they have plans to destabilize Iran so as to realize their mischievous objective of regime change in Tehran?

A: One can contend that the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Endowment for Democracy are much more than advocacy organizations. The question suggests the popular view that Western states and especially the United States are above such organizations in terms of decision making power and responsiveness to the populations they purportedly serve.

This is the idealization of a transcendent governing apparatus upheld in public opinion and touted in Western mainstream media. This is the myth the CFR specifically perpetuates about itself and the liberal state. In fact, the CFR is a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and it has more or less dictated US foreign policy from within entities such as the US State Department since before World War Two.

This is not to say that every member of the CFR is involved in such maneuvers. Some are in the organization because they're flattered to be asked and they see it as prestigious and fashionable, or they wish to network with other influential figures. Yet it is no mistake that membership is exclusive and participants all occupy strategic positions of power in major global corporations, in academe and the media, and in government, and thus can be mobilized to exert their influence as the CFR inner circle desires. They also openly share in the ideology of weakening the nation state and privileging global-regional and international bodies, such as the European Union and the United Nations.

It is through such organizations that they can get their policies enacted with little if any interference from the common people or their representatives at the national level. The CFR's interests and activities, alongside the interests supported by the major philanthropic foundations such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundations, and the Gates Foundation, are demonstrable manifestations of the deep state that truly runs the world, has priorities that differ greatly from the bulk of humanity, and has sought to exert itself since the 1920s.

The "Arab Spring" appears to be largely a maneuver of organizations such as the CFR and NED. This was evident from the onset with the high degree of Western media exposure afforded the fairly modest demonstrations 2011 in Tahrir Square that preceded Mubarak's ouster by the Central Intelligence Agency. The same media outlets unquestioningly covered the Western and Sunni-backed deployment of Al Qaeda mercenary forces and NATO airpower against the most modern and socially progressive state on the African continent under the Obama administration's "Responsibility to Protect" cover. A central bank was reportedly created in the back of a mercenary pickup truck. This was a colossal war crime that Western public opinion is left largely in the dark about. It also underscored liberal-progressive hypocrisy and credulousness in the US, evident in the pronouncements of public figures such as Juan Cole and Amy Goodman, who led the cheering section for Libya's destruction. If the Bush administration successfully vanquished the probable leader of the African Union those on the Left would have been in a huff. When one of their purported own oversees such a campaign it's not only condoned but applauded, much like the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia by Clinton.

As many of your readers are likely aware, Libya is significant because some of the same mercenary forces recruited by US intelligence and Sunni states that were employed there are now deployed in Syria. Like Libya, Syria is also a fairly modern state that is not hostile to the West but is regarded as being autonomous, particularly in its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah. It is also seen as a strategic threat to Israel in terms of Iran, and so must be dismantled before a more concerted campaign against Iran is to take place. I'm inclined to think that those determining policy for the Obama administration want compliant fundamentalist regimes installed throughout the Middle East. This will be disastrous to overall security in the region but I don't believe that's their goal. War is much more profitable and has much greater potential than peace for those who wish to exert control over resources.

Q: In one of your articles, you argue that the United States has become a police state, with such restrictive legislations and programs which the government has put into effect to limit the citizens' personal freedoms and different types of civil liberties, such as the Sedition Act of 1798 which criminalizes the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government and governmental officials. Would you please elaborate more on your notion of the United States becoming a police state?

A: I believe this was "The Paranoid Style of American Governance," where I pointed out that the laws, policies, and organizational structure of the US government, how its exaggerated concern over surveillance and security is arrayed against the American people. The situation is comparable to how an increasingly delusional paranoid might approach human relationships s/he is involved in.  As a result of the 1996 Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act following the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing and the 2001 PATRIOT Act enacted after September 11, 2001 many of the civil liberties Americans have been guaranteed under the Constitution have been stolen, never to return.

Citizens cannot expect to be secure in their persons and papers. We are subjected to humiliating warrantless searches at transportation facilities. As a result of a string of legislation capped off by President Obama's National Defense Authorization Act of December 2011 the government now reserves the right to jail or murder citizens on political grounds. There is little if any recourse because our political representation has to a large degree been bought off by private interests. The US increasingly looks like a totalitarian state and is one major event away from fully resembling the Soviet Union or an Eastern Bloc state circa 1970. The extent of the rollback in civil liberties is very overdone because a majority of Americans are ill-informed, politically unsophisticated, and in many instances even functionally illiterate. Thus they are unaware of the police state's accelerated formation since the mid-1990s and unprepared to contest it. A combined regime of poor public education and the stultifying effects of mass media and culture have dumbed the American public down to the extent that its republic has been taken right out from underneath its nose.

Q: It's widely believed that the United States, as its leaders claim, is a "beacon of freedom" since the mass media are allowed to publish every critical material at will, even if they threaten the national security, in such cases of war with another nation. Is this widely-accepted belief true? Don't the mass media face any restriction or impediment by the government to censor certain stories or withhold from the public sensitive information?

A: The major, agenda-setting US news media—USA Today, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and their broadcast and cablecast amplifiers—that the small strata of semi-politically adept and literate citizens rely on for information are all controlled by interests that are overall supportive of the US police state and US-NATO foreign policy. To return to your initial question, many of the owners or top editors and journalists are also CFR members. Together they perform a central propagandistic function of the state through selective reportage of issues and events, omission of key information, and heavy reliance on "official" government or corporate sources.

Such a set of procedures is worse than outright falsehoods because a falsehood can be disproved and a journalist or news organization called out on the carpet. However, by owning most of the newsgathering and distribution outlets, by using official sources and employing careful editing procedures such media retain credibility in the public mind. In the Soviet Union much of the citizenry knew that by reading Pravda they were being fed outright lies so they learned to "read between the lines" to interpret what was really going on. That requires a degree of political sophistication that is beyond most Americans.

The government and major news media are also being challenged by alternative news media and thus resort to a more blatant form of disinformation that jeopardizes their perceived trustworthiness, which is now at an all-time low. This is the case with their coverage of the US-NATO actions and Libya and Syria—specifically the fact that the US is allied with and actively supporting its alleged arch enemy Al Qaeda.

For over a year corporate media tried to cover this up when it was there in plain view. Alternative outlets reported otherwise and in the face of this mainstream media had to eventually relent and admit that the US is indeed supporting Al Qaeda.

As an example, one case involved a US-based alternative media outlet reporting on the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies collectively purchasing over one billion rounds of lethal, "hollow point" ammunition. Major media sought to assuage growing public concern on this by focusing on a single government agency's (the Social Security Administration) purchase of 180,000 rounds of such ammunition, asserting that it was for target practice. This was absolute propaganda likely pitched to these outlets by covert government sources. It's fairly common knowledge among American gun enthusiasts that "full metal jacket" ammo is used on the range because it's far less expensive than hollow point and performs the same function. Nevertheless, the 180,000 SSA story was widely circulated, performing the intended propaganda function, mainly through conscious omission of the most important information that alternative media honestly chose to highlight.

Another argument that I need to make in light of the world wide expanse of news and information now available on the Internet is that the US citizenry doesn't need to rely primarily on USA Today or New York Times editors for what it is exposed to. This remains the case so long as the Internet remains free from government or corporate encroachment and regulation. In this regard there is a wealth of information for those who have the time, discernment, and initiative to seek it out and become informed. Investigative journalists and commentators have much to draw on in terms of analyzing and explaining the meaning and significance of issues and events. This is essentially what newspapers and journals did before the application of scientific objectivity to journalism and the pretentious separation of news from analysis and opinion.

Q: What challenges do the independent, progressive journalists of the United States face today? In one of your articles, you had criticized some of the progressive media for failing to give coverage to important topics such as the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Would you please elaborate on that? In my view, the progressive media outlets such as CounterPunch or The Nation have to some extent broken apart the monopoly of the mainstream media and allowed the free flow of information while the mainstream media steadfastly try to suffocate the truth. Don't you agree?

BS detectors

Climate Etc.
Judith Curry

Most likely, their bullshit detectors just went on high alert. – Greg Breining

Amidst the many explanations for rational skepticism in the face of consensus ‘truth’ about climate change, the ‘BS detector’ explanation deserves more investigation and discussion

A cool-headed climate conversation with Aerospace legend Burt Rutan describes a rational BS detection process.  If you don’t know who Bert Rutan is, see his Wikipedia bio.  Some excerpts:

Even though I’ve been very busy throughout my entire career developing and flight-testing airplanes for the Air Force, I’ve always pursued other research hobbies in my time away from work. Since I’m very accustomed to analyzing a lot of data, about three or four years ago many alarmist claims by some climate scientists caught my attention. Since this is such an important topic, I began to look into it firsthand.

Although I have no climate science credentials, I do have considerable expertise in processing and presenting data. I have also had extensive opportunities to observe how other people present data and use it to make their points. There is a rampant tendency in any industry where someone is trying to sell something with a bunch of data, where they cherry pick a little bit…bias a little bit. This becomes quite easy when there is an enormous amount of data to cherry pick from.

The first thing that got my attention, a lot of people’s attention, was statements that the entire planet is heading towards a future climate catastrophe that is attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions. So I decided to take a look at that and just see if this conclusion was arrived at ethically. It’s obviously an extremely important issue which has gotten a huge amount of media attention.  I was particularly concerned because the proposed solutions will have enormous impacts upon costs of energy, which of course, will increase costs of everything.

Many people seem to get much of their information from what they see in newspapers. I may be considerably different, in that I always like to look at both sides of things that I take special interest in. So when I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn’t obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.

I even read Al Gore’s book, which was very enlightening…but not in a good way. When you look for data to back up his claims, you immediately discover that they are totally unsubstantiated. This was frankly astonishing because analyzing data is something I’m very good at. All my professional life I have been analyzing complex flight test data, interpreting it and presenting it. Something that I always did in flight test is to make a chart that shows every bit of the data, and only then, decide later on the basis of real observed results which parts of the data were valid.

What I’m doing really, is just put out all of the data I can in order to enable anyone to look at everything before arriving at a conclusion. If someone forms a conclusion at the onset, they can always find and focus only on data that supports their theory.

Larry, I wasn’t really taken back so much by the hostile responses.  I expected some of that.  But later when I decided to answer some of the more than 150 comments posted at the Scholars and Rogues website, I was surprised that I was often attacked in a very personal way which denigrated my intelligence and accused me of bias. I have no reason to have any bias. Some said I was obviously being paid for by oil companies, which seemed like a joke.  If you go through and read my responses you will find that I did so with hard data that alarmists will not publish. But they don’t hesitate to publish personal attacks.

Larry, I’ve done all I plan to do on this for now, and have moved on to other interests. This debate will all get sorted out, and I am confident it will be for the better.  When I started, I strongly believed that the debate needed me because I didn’t see anyone out there really looking at the data the way an engineer looks at.  Now I see that other people are doing this, including climate scientists and non-scientists the world over by the tens of thousands, people who are actually looking at the real data just like I have. I still follow the status of the debate, and occasionally comment on it.

Whether or not you agree with Rutan’s interpretation and analysis of climate data, the approach that he has taken provides a classical example of a BS detector in action.

Conspiracy theorists (?)

The latest ‘explanation’ for lack of belief in the IPCC consensus ‘truth’ is that these non believers are conspiracy theorists.  See Stephan Lewandowsky’s editorial Evidence is overrated if you are a conspiracy theorist.  Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey.  Bloggers such as Steve McIntyre,Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs).  BS detection in action.  While I have used the term ‘auditors’ for deep investigations of problems with climate data, BS detection seems much more apt for this particular issue.

Lew, get a clew.  I hope this experience with the skeptical bloggers has revealed what they are really all about, as they have revealed YOUR conspiracy by finding a really big pile.

The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers  has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum (link).  SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers.  All this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars.  But take a step back, and consider how bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.

Motivated (?) reasoning

Reflecting on this general topic has led me to a new insight, or at least to a new hypothesis.  Serious social scientists have identified a split (liberal vs conservative) in terms of support vs skepticism of the climate change argument, with the conservative skeptics being generally more educated on the topic.  How to explain this, other than motivated reasoning by the conservatives?

Here is an alternative hypothesis:  the motivation reasoning is on the other side, the liberal defenders of the CAGW consensus.   Once the ‘consensus’ argument stepped beyond climate science into the realm of ‘dangerous’ impacts and ‘solutions’ involving global changes in governance and energy policy, BS detectors were triggered in people who didn’t share that motivation.

End of the Global Warming Debate as We Know It?

Daily Bell

Christy is a data maven. He spends "tedious" weeks and months examining surface observations as well as weather balloon and satellite measurements to build "datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why." He uses the datasets "to test hypotheses of climate variability and change." Yes, it's called the scientific method ... Christy found that there were several years with more than 6,000 record-setting highs before 1940 but none with record highs above 5,000 after 1954. "The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency, but actually appear to be decreasing." – Globalwarming.org

Dominant Social Theme: The sky is falling.

Free-Market Analysis: John Christy may just have ended the climate change/global warming argument as we know it.

Christy recently provided devastating testimony (see article excerpt above) to a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing entitled "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Adaptation."

Who is Christy? According to Wikipedia, he's a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) "whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change."

He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, Wikipedia tells us. And what he's done is compile a list of US temperatures going back decades. He's listed the highest recorded highs and lowest lows and then plotted these as data points to establish a trend.

This is a very simple way to establish whether temperatures are on their way up generally or on their way down. It is much simpler and more direct than trying to monitor ocean currents, sun spots or even whether certain glaciers are melting on the North or South Poles.

It is such a simple idea we wonder why it hasn't been thought of before. Of course, actually, we think we know. Global warming is a most questionable occurrence, but the powers-that-be have actively promoted it whenever possible. They have no interest in debunking it.

Global warming is a classical dominant social theme of the power elite, it seems to us. The idea is to frighten Western middle classes via scarcity-based promotions into giving up power and wealth to specially prepared globalist institutions.

Global warming is a core meme because it offers the elites justification for numerous kinds of command-and-control activities. If the power elite is going to take over the world, formally anyway, it will need to exercise an enormous amount of control over the world's six billion inhabitants.

By putting forth the apparent fiction that the world is warming due to human actions, the elites can install numerous types of political, economic and social constraints. People's consumption of energy can be monitored, their actions restricted, their opportunities to travel and congregate can be withheld due to various "global warming" or "climate change" programs.

All this is very useful to a power elite that obviously believes it will have to generate significant justifications for overseeing humanity in the most detailed way within the context of global government.
The Internet itself – a miscalculation of the power elite – has done much to undermine elite promotions generally and global warming in particular.

In desperation, the elites have realigned the nomenclature of their non-existent climatic disturbance. It is now known as "climate change" but it is nonetheless de-bunkable. And it seems Christy has definitively debunked it. Here's more from the article:

Much of what passes for climate science today is, in Christy's words, "opinion, arguments from authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by a preselected group."
... Such assertions, Christy shows, are not based on real data. One way to measure trends in extreme weather is to compare the number of state record high and low temperatures by decade. Many more state high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades. Even more surprising, "since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade."
There is no discernible greenhouse "fingerprint" in these data.

One might object that state temperature records are not informative, because the number of data points — 50 — is so small. So Christy also investigated "the year-by-year numbers of daily all-time record high temperatures from a set of 970 weather stations with at least 80 years of record." He explains: "There are 365 opportunities in each year (366 in leap years) for each of the 970 stations to set a record high ...
Christy emphasizes that he is not using these data to prove that U.S. weather is becoming less extreme or colder. Rather, his point is that "extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change."

... Christy has devoted much of his career to developing a satellite record of global temperatures. Satellite datasets "are not affected by these surface problems and more directly represent the heat content of the atmosphere." Satellite data indicate that IPCC climate models are too sensitive and project too much warming.

The IPCC models, of course, are models generated and disseminated by the United Nations. IPCC stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it is UN affiliated.

The IPCC is behind much of the propaganda disseminated about global warming and climate change. IPCC bureaucrats cited popular articles as established scientific fact in various presentations but were later forced to retract such statements.

The UN generally and the IPCC specifically have been used as vehicles to promote global warming and "carbon pollution." But now it would seem that there is solid data provided by Christy that can rebut global warming once and for all.

Conclusion: We're not surprised that Christy's bombshell research has not received the widespread coverage it evidently deserves. Please spread the word ..

Is the Carbon Tax the Death of Democracy?

DiscerningKate
Kate Johnston

On July 1st 2012, Australia joined nations around the world in their move towards a carbon economy through the implementation of a Carbon Tax, which will become an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015. Yet the underpinning justification for this move, the science behind man-made global warming, is not even close to being settled. In fact, an increasingly large body of scientists and researchers are telling us the exact opposite of what the United Nations and governments around the world would have us believe. It is now evident that the science behind man-made global warming that dictates government policy is false, manipulated and corrupt and exists solely to meet a pre-determined political agenda whilst attempting to pass it off as credible science.

Central to this article is the role of the United Nations in all of this. Their treaties, summits and bodies have been responsible for providing the framework and political will  that has moved the ‘environmental movement’ to where it is today.

This article seeks to go into more depth into current day science which overwhelmingly suggests that global warming is not caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. Furthermore, I will outline the role of key players on the international stage that have worked tirelessly to convince us otherwise.

Finally, I will begin to look in more depth at what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is and where it actually originated. As the article progresses it will become clearer that the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme do absolutely nothing for the environment. Given this is the pretext used by governments for introducing carbon economy, I will attempt to convey some deeper social, political and economic influences at work here. In doing so, I hope to assist in understanding the reasons why we are moving towards a carbon economy and how this global movement abolishes our inalienable rights as human beings and basic freedoms – most of which many of us take for granted.

The United Nation Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC)

According to the UN IPCC’s website “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

The UN IPCC’s findings are directly responsible for government policy being implemented around the world and this is carried out through four assessment reports produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. There are currently 192 countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an important international framework that commits governments to tackle climate change through a reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. There are 194 recognised countries in the world (depending on your source).

Despite its global dominance, overwhelming evidence suggests that these powerful assessment reports that dictate policy and directly responsible for the introduction of the Carbon Tax are false and full of misinformation. How is it that such a powerful tool as the United Nations with immense influence over world governments was able to progress so far in an agenda that was based on lies?

Key Players

One name that constantly comes up in regards to the global ‘environmental movement’ (Climate Change Industry) is Maurice Strong. Strong has been driving the climate change bandwagon since its origins back in the 70′s. Having made his fortune in oil, Maurice became very involved with the United Nations and headed many programs and summits on climate change. Maurice Strong fled to China in 2006 after being implicated in a million dollar bribe to himself involving the Oil for Food Program. He has been there ever since and is still very active in the ‘environmental movement’.

To further understand how we got ourselves to where we are today, we have to understand where the myth of man-made global warming really gained traction. Al Gore’s book and ‘documentary’ - An Inconvenient Truth - was a hit worldwide, it even received not one but two Oscars! Reminds me of when Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – what a joke! Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was highly successful in instilling fear around the world that imminent climate cataclysmic events would soon follow all because of human produced Carbon Dioxide. The documentary spread like wild fire and found its way into classrooms across America. The fate of humanity was sealed; disaster would fall upon us and entire cities would be under water, unless, we acted now. Complete lies!

So what else do these two powerful men have in common besides being strong proponents behind the ‘environmental movement’? It’s called The Chicago Climate Exchange and it is North America’s sole carbon exchange centre (think stock market). Yes, that’s right these men are raking in massive profits from the global Emissions Trading Scheme. Conflict of interest? I think so! The same men that sold us the myth of man-made global warming are the same men that sold us the ‘solution’ of a Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme and now they’re profiting off their lucrative investments which are based on lies.

Dr. Vincent Gray senior climate skeptic and UN IPCC expert reviewer

Dr. Vincent Gray is an internationally eminent retired scientist with a Phd in Chemistry from Cambridge, who enjoyed a long career as a coal industry researcher before spending the last 22 years of his life in climate science. He lives off his pension and receives no funding for his climate research work, hence his interest in the climate debate is not influenced by any financial ties or interests.

He has published hundreds of scientific papers spanning many topics with several on climate appearing in peer-reviewed publications. But due to the institutional corruption and politicisation surrounding the Climate Change debate, much of his work is censored. He also authored two books; The Climate Change Delusion and Confessions of a Climate Skeptic.

Dr Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for over 1000′s of comments on the reports most of which were ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr Vincent Gray’s comments were not peer-reviewed; an essential method used in the science world to ensure consensus and accurate scientific findings.

In an interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, I asked him about the UN IPCC’s credibility and track record.

“The 1992 Rio Conference endorsed a legally binding definition of ‘Climate Change’  that the climate is largely controlled by human-produced trace gases.”

“They wished to show that the globe is warming, but this cannot be done as it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth.”

I delved further, questioning the system that governs the Climate Change Industry where Dr Vincent provided some further interesting insight.

“The whole system is supported, supervised and financed by the governments who signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

“They intimidated editors of scientific journals to control the ‘peer review’ process in their favour.”

“They took control of many university departments, National science organisations and media outlets.”

“People who tell the truth are intimidated.”

Dr Vincent’s comments on the UN IPCC reports conveys the inherent institutional corruption that occurred allowing inaccurate science of ‘man-made global warming’ to infiltrate society’s perceptions thus forming the foundation of government policy.

Science – The Facts

The next section of this article will be concerned with the science underpinning man-made global warming, specifically human Carbon Dioxide emissions and whether or not humans are responsible for a rise in temperatures, Global Warming and/or Climate Change. This key point is at the heart of the entire debate because it is on this false and misleading science that a global re-structuring of the economy, politics and society as we know it is occurring. So if the science that justifies the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme and other massive global transformations are in fact based on lies, wouldn’t you like to know?

Firstly, the world hasn’t actually been warming since 1998, it’s been cooling. This explains why ‘Global Warming’ has been re-branded as ‘Climate Change’. UN IPCC’s underpinning science purports that a rise in man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions is responsible for a rise in temperature, but this simply isn’t true. It is the other way around. It is temperatures that dictate Carbon Dioxide levels. Dr. Tim Ball a prominent speaker on Climate change and climate skeptic outlines this in a radio interview with Alan Jones.

UN IPCC temperature data, from which their conclusions on man-made global warming are drawn, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The data is taken from weather stations from around the world and then assembled into computer models which frame our understanding of global warming today. Yet in 1990 when over 6000 weather stations worldwide were being used, three quarters dropped out which left a clear bias towards warmer temperature recordings from the remaining active weather stations. This suggests that the recent warming that we know of is connected to the methods of recording and not an actual increase in temperature. More details about how this crucial data is flawed can be found within this report from Science and Public Policy.

Dr. Vincent Courtillot, Professor of Geophysics at University Paris Diderot formed a research group with other established scientists from around Europe to determine the cause of temperature fluctuation. After requesting UN IPCC’s data that forms their theory of man-made Global Warming, he was denied, therefore he and his group had to re-collate the data independently. His research found that temperature change is determined solely by Solar activity. Yes, that’s right the sun dictates temperature, not Carbon Dioxide levels of which humans have a minuscule influence compared to what is produced naturally by nature. Their scientific findings are well documented and can be viewed here. 

And what about the global rise in sea levels devastating coastal cities around the world? Well science around the world shows no change in Global Sea levels, with Tidal Gauge stations recording an average of 18cm Global Sea Level Rise every century with no variation recorded during increased temperatures. That’s 1.8mm a year. This information can be viewed from a joint report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change – A consortium of independent scientists established to analyse published and peer-reviewed literature available on global warming from around the world producing a report that directly responds to the UN IPCC’s reports. Another excellent research paper on sea level rise around the world can be viewedhere.

A 1000 international Scientists who dissent and disagree with man-made global warming speak out in the Climate Depot Report. One scientist, Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center said:

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

The information is available for anyone to read. We have been lied to. Global warming is a scam. But why has the United Nations gone to such great lengths to have us believe otherwise? Is an Emissions Trading Scheme so important? Or is there something else going on?

The Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme

The initial step of the Carbon Tax in the move towards a Carbon Economy is underway. If left unchallenged, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced in 2015 paving the way for the new Global Carbon Economy. This integrated global economic system is based on trading and control of carbon emissions. This is how it works; companies are designated with an amount of carbon credits in line with the government’s cap of carbon emissions that they’re allowed to emit. Companies that emit less are left with carbon credits which can be sold for a profit. Alternatively, if they use all their credits they purchase more carbon credits from companies around the world on the carbon exchange market. The idea is to give an economic incentive to polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. As the world moves closer to their goal of reducing emissions as outlined at the United Nations Kyoto protocol, we are told that we are helping the environment by limiting pollution. But again, the incentive for polluters only occurs if it is profitable. There is much criticism about the effectiveness of this system where it is currently implemented in Europe and has nothing short of failed. Fraud and corruption are rife and emissions have not yet been reduced – and even if they were it wouldn’t actually have any effect on the climate change anyway!

Eventually the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits will be transferred to individuals in the form of a carbon card, much like a credit card we use today only it is for our energy consumption. Individuals will be designated with an annual carbon allowance to meet their energy, fuel and travel needs. The concept remains the same as the Emissions Trading Scheme, only the individual is designated carbon credits to be exchanged on the Carbon Stock Exchange markets. Plans in the UK for the carbon trading credit cards are well underway and will follow around the world soon enough. As nations attempt to meet their emission reduction goals, individual carbon allowances will also be capped and decrease over time.

This system of carbon trading and carbon economy is in the hands of themajor banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Personally, I don’t feel too good about handing over the reigns of control of many aspects of my life to be regulated by the banks and governments. How do you feel about that?

Social Transformation

As we slowly move into a carbon currency, we replace our current price based system with one that deals with energy, which will essentially lead to a cashless society. We are already seeing this happening voluntarily around the world. As people increasingly start to use their credit cards for all their transactions, money in circulation will eventually be replaced with purely electronic transactions and energy allowances or individual carbon credits. This was on the Bilderberg 2012′s Agenda with the move towards electronic I.D. cards already happening – an essential step towards a cashless society. Every detail about us is recorded on these cards through micro chip technology. But keep in mind, individuals in a cashless society hands over all their rights to the government and banks that control the system.

Another worrying aspect of the ‘environmental movement’ in the name of ‘saving the planet’ is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development, adopted by more than 178 governments around the world at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Agenda 21 is a detailed global action plan already adopted and being implemented by governments around the world which openly calls for population reduction, abolition of property rights and a complete re-structuring of populations around the world into high-volume smart cities. This is not a joke; it is an United Nations international treaty and a working document that governments are already implementing on both national and local level. I will dedicate an entire article to this issue in the coming weeks.

But probably of most interest about the Emissions Trading Scheme and the move towards a carbon economy is its startling parallels with Technocracy. Technocracy is a social movement and alternative political system that gained quite a bit of traction in the US in the 1930′s during the Great Depression. It is a social, economic and political system based on individual’s energy consumption and is controlled wholly by experts and scientists – not elected leaders like the system we live in today. Instead of people being rewarded with money for their work, they would be given energy allowances. One key aspect of Technocracy is the Energy Distribution Card. Sounds familiar? Well it should, the idea is being rolled out around the world now all in the name of fighting man-made global warming yet the idea originated long before man-made global warming even existed. Are we moving towards a Technocratic society?

Central to Technocracy is a system that allows for the measurement of energy consumption of both individuals and households. The political system cannot be implemented otherwise. This may sounds familiar to some of you as the Smart Grid and Smart Meters currently being rolled out around the world. This technology is being hooked up to households around the world and infrastructure is being designed that will allow Smart Grids to be integrated into a much larger global system of measuring energy production and consumption.

A brilliant question by Patrick Wood, “Who is orchestrating this?”

So now what?

All of the ‘solutions’ I have outlined in this article are being sold to the world via media and education in the name of ‘saving the environment’. But the very same entities responsible for creating the ‘solutions’, are the ones responsible for the problem to begin with and pose a serious threat towards truly sustainable solutions. The state of technology and resources existing today to transform our society towards a truly sustainable global community are infinite. All that stands in our way are the political, economic and social systems currently in place. But we must remember that they only exist because we allow them too.

One way or another a fundamental transformation of our global society is underway. The only question we need ask ourselves is do we want to be a part of the alternative and co-create a sustainable global community together? Or do we want to let the bankers, politicians and technocrats do it for us under the guise of ‘sustainability’ whilst moving towards a world where every aspect of our lives are governed and controlled. Freedom as we know it will no longer exist and along with our freedom will go the mechanisms that are now available to us to protect it.

Things are moving fast, faster than we can comprehend. It’s time to make your choice. By doing nothing, you are complicit to their plan. By remaining indifferent you allow this repressive and controlling global system to be built right in front of your very eyes. But by saying no, educating yourself and beginning to actively participate in opposing this system you make room for the new fair, equal and just paradigm. A world to be built by the collective, by all of us. An alternative system that we can all be proud to call our own. We don’t have much time left, we must act and we must act now.

Empirical Scientific Data Continues to Discredit Climate Change Alarmists

Occupy Corporatism
Susanne Posnell

Based on a new mathematical reconfiguration of the false claims that CO2 is affecting the earth’s temperature that is circulating the web, a call for a “carbon deinvestment campaign” has been made.

By making carbon taxes a global and integral part of the “fee-and-dividend approach”, these climate change alarmists want to redistribute wealth from country to country as the globalists at the UN have outlined in various eco-terrorist manifestos.

However, real scientific data from real world observations and not the IPCC’s falsified computer model projections are painting a different picture of what is actually happening with our weather and what the true effects of climate change actually are.

Anthony Watts, former television meteorologist, has conducted a study into the reliability of weather stations in the US Historical Climatology Network. According to Watts’ analysis of the position of the weather stations and their spoiling of assumed empirical data, results show the planet warming at just 0.155 degrees Celsius per decade, rather than the 0.309 C per decade cited by the government.

Watts believes that the reality of global warming is that it is not as “catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.”

During the 2012 UN Earth Summit in Rio+20, a new global climate treaty was first and foremost on the agenda to force all the world’s nations to be bound by international mandate to follow the regulations of the UN with respect to climate change policies – which ultimately gives the UN control over each nation’s internal structures.

Alarmist are using efforts like the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) is pressuring Capitol Hill to reintroduce this bill in letters to elected officials that use fear-mongering of man-made climate change as the purpose of such legislation. The CCL claim : “As evidence keeps mounting about the dangerous trajectory of human-induced climate change, it becomes clear that Earth’s natural systems are rapidly approaching tipping points for global warming. Failure to act now will doom future generations to one cataclysm after another –shortages of food and water, displacement of millions from rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather disasters, and the breakdown of civil society.”

The hijacking of the environmental movement has produced Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and “green groups” that are able to raise funds and influence nation’s global warming policies for the agendas of the UN. By lobbying with fear-mongering they are successful in making over-blown assumptions about the extreme weather, ocean acidification and melting glaciers.

Ocean fertilization , the use of plankton to push CO2 into the depths of the ocean, is a scheme invented by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) that approved ocean fertilization as a “preventative” measure of sequestering CO2 in the deep oceans. One of the most devastating effects is the increased acidification of the oceans.

Bill Gates and his colleague David Keith are funding alarmist scientists from Harvard University will spray thousands of tons of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the earth’s atmosphere to artificially cool the planet . This solar geoengineering seeks to replicate volcano effects, which shoot sulfates into the stratosphere by using synthetic sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight back out into space.

Solar engineering will directly amplify specific areas of study as the have chosen sulfuric dust the mimics the emissions of volcanoes. An intended consequences of solar geoengineering is the whitening of our skies because of the nano particles being released to reflect sunlight. Sulfate aerosols cause whiter daytime skies and sunset to glow brighter.

And further amplification of our atmosphere with the use of solar geoengineering will directly affect immediate weather patterns across the globe. Effectively, the global warming effects alarmists are complaining about and blaming on man-made CO2 are actually causation of the UN’s various restructuring of the earth’s atmospheric chemical elements into a more toxically sulfuric.

Amount of CO2 being sucked away by Earth 'has doubled in 50 years'

The Register
Lewis Page

US federal government boffins have announced a "surprising new study" which reveals that the amount of carbon dioxide being drawn out of the air and absorbed by the world's landmasses and oceans doubled from 1960 to 2010.

The new information is deemed sufficiently applecart-busting in climatology terms that it has been published in flagship boffinry journal Nature today. The "surprising" description comes from an accompanying announcement by Colorado uni, where some of the investigating scientists were based.

"Earth is taking up twice as much CO₂ today as it was 50 years ago," says Colorado postdoc Ashley Ballantyne, lead author of the new paper, in tinned quotes issued by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - whose boffins were also involved in the research.

According to the NOAA:

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.

"We don't know why or where this process is happening," commented NOAA boffin Pieter Tans. "We need to identify what's going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO₂ levels and how climate change will progress in the future."
According to the Colorado uni announcement:

Recent studies by others have suggested carbon sinks were declining in some areas of the globe, including parts of the Southern Hemisphere and portions of the world's oceans. But the new Nature study showed global CO₂ uptake by Earth's sinks essentially doubled from 1960 to 2010.

Apparently the forces sucking carbon from the air have increased in power especially strongly in recent years:

According to the study, the scientists observed decreased CO₂ uptake by Earth's land and oceans in the 1990s, followed by increased CO₂ sequestering by the planet from 2000 to 2010.

"Seeing such variation from decade to decade tells us that we need to observe Earth's carbon cycle for significantly longer periods in order to help us understand what is occurring," says Ballantyne.

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

American Thinker
Joseph L. Bast

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story.  The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming.  Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" -- is undermined.  The Obama administration's war on coal may be unnecessary.  Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted.  Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.

The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure.  Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22).  In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).  Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18).  In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists -- a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers -- was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the "mainstream" of alarmist climate change thinking.  "[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment's findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated," the IAC auditors wrote.  The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report "too political" (p. 25).

Globalists Switching Gears: Royal Society Lecturer Says CO2 Not Effecting Earth’s Temperature

Occupy Corporatism
Suzanne Posel

Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.

Vahrenholt has been a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009. He served as a senator for the environment in Hamburg, Germany between 1991 and 1997, and was a member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel in 2001 to 2007.

Speaking at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, Vahrenholt was representing RWE Innogy , one of Europe’s largest renewable energy corporations.

Vahrenholt, who reviewed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most recent report on renewable energy, noticed that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support their assertions. A prominent member of Greenpeace, a UN propaganda arm disguised as a proponent of environmental concern, edited the final version of the IPCC’s report.

The IPCC’s report, according to Vahrenholt, is littered with falsities and a complete disregard for natural factors that would be considered in fluctuating climate such as Earth’s.

Vahrenholt states that: “Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.”

The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”

Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing palatable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.
The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years.

Global Warming's Killer: Critical Thinking

American Thinker
Russell  Cook

Is there any issue more dependent on widespread lapses in critical thinking than the idea of man-caused global warming?

Nothing wrecks an argument faster than a question revealing a gaping hole in that argument's fundamental premise.  Notice the abundantly obvious derailment in this example:
"We need to do something about the proliferation of ghosts causing an unprecedented number of people to have nightmares lately.  This problem leads to widespread sleeplessness, which in turn leads to a downturn in work productivity and overall economic hardship, and you are a cold-hearted capitalist pig if you deny the need for workers to be healthy."

Any critical thinker will yell, "What?! Prove ghosts exist before you start calling me names!"
The so-called global warming crisis has gotten away with an equally preposterous premise -- that human activity drives climate change --  for nearly two decades, because that premise at least sounded plausible.  After all, humans do damage the environment to some extent in various ways, and the weather does seem a bit weird lately, so maybe it's possible that our greenhouse gas emissions have a detrimental effect.  Plus, reporters tell us that scientists are saying this is so.

Overlooked by many is the very thing that's kept the issue alive all this time.  No different from in a ponzi scheme, the public must never lose confidence in the idea that this issue is a problem in need of a solution.  The moment anything approaching a majority of people starts asking tough questions about skeptic scientists expressing legitimate opposition, the entire issue goes into a fatal tailspin, taking down all those who unquestioningly defend the idea.

Think about all the assertions we've heard and what happens when anybody starts asking critical questions using information that's easier than ever to find on the internet.

Even at the height of winter in the northern hemisphere, we're told the Arctic ice cap is melting and that polar bears drown when swimming through too much open water.  Yet polar bear populations are increasing, online Arctic weather station feeds closest to the ice cap routinely show freezing temps in all but the warmest summer months, and this particular winter, Arctic Sea Ice Extent has returned to levels very close to the 1979-2000 average.
The media has been implying that extreme weather is more frequent, yet blaring headlines from long ago are easily found on weather appearing to be just as extreme, if not worse.

We're told that the dry warm winter in the U.S. this time around indicates global warming, yet horrible cold temperatures in Europe this same winter aren't called a similar indicator.

Many express anguish over ocean acidification, yet these same people never mention the irrefutable fact that oceans are alkaline and that it would thus take some kind of herculean phenomenon just to push them into a pure neutral pH balance, long before they ever become even mildly acidic.

Prominent NASA personnel who criticized NASA's alarmist narratives on global warming in a recent WSJ letter are said to be politically driven, yet NASA climate scientist James Hansen is routinely seen being arrested at civil disobedience global warming rallies organized by far-left enviro-activists.

The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that "everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less."  Yet people who meticulously sift through IPCC reports are finding out that in its 2007 report alone, over 5,500 such publications were non-peer-reviewed.

And on and on.  Critical thinking is eventually deadly to the idea of man-caused global warming.  It's a death by a thousand cuts.